Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Fun with Stewie

Are you feeling a hollow spot in your life, something that can only be filled by a series of obvious statements mixed in with easily disprovable claims? Fret no longer, as another Stewart Mandel mailbag is upon us. Today's primary topics:

1. Oklahoma

You know one team that none of us mentioned in this impromptu title debate, despite winning 11 games last year and despite rating among Vegas' top-10 contenders? Oklahoma. Isn't that strange? Dan Johnson of Big Rapids, Mich., wonders the same thing:

Ever since the debacle against USC in the 2005 Orange Bowl, it seems like the pollsters have been a little bit leery of ranking Oklahoma high in the early part of the season. Do you think that OU is finally starting to move past that hurdle or do you think that the poll voters still keep that particular game in mind when making their decisions?

There's no question that 55-19 humiliation became something of a milestone in terms of the perception surrounding Bob Stoops' program. It's pretty simple: Before that game, the Sooners were considered a national title contender every year; now, they're not. Sure, they may start every season in the top 10, but I get the sense not too many people outside the great state of Oklahoma actually believe them to be capable of hanging in USC/LSU/Texas/Florida territory. And for that, I blame not only that Orange Bowl but also the Big 12 title-game beatdown by Kansas State the year before, the season-opening loss to TCU the following year, the end of their run of dominance against arch-rival Texas, the Rhett Bomar scandal and the Fiesta Bowl loss to Boise State. Basically, where once there was an aura of invincibility that surrounded Stoops' program, now they seem like just one of many very-good-but-hardly-impregnable teams. And that's reflected in their standing in the polls.

Isn't this just a lot of words to explain the simple fact that the Sooners lost four games in 2005 and three games in 2006, both of which are inconsistent with being a major power? I suppose Mandel deserves minor kudos for mentioning that Stoops no longer having a hex over Mack Brown is a major issue, since the Longhorns typically provided Oklahoma with their validation every year in an otherwise unimpressive Big XII, but how does he not mention the 800-pound gorilla in the room? Bob Stoops is a defensive guy and his best Oklahoma teams were dominant on that side of the ball. Last year, Oklahoma gave up 34, 28, and 35 (in regulation) in their three losses. In 2005, OU allowed 40+ twice and 30+ two more times. The interesting angle on Oklahoma is what happened to Bob Stoops' previously dominant defenses, but why go that route when we can be hyper conventional and blame it all on quarterbacks:

When you look at the 2007 Sooners on paper, there's a lot to like. Between Allen Patrick and freshman sensation DeMarco Murray, the running game should be phenomenal. They have a veteran offensive line and a solid group of receivers (love Malcolm Kelly). And most of the defense returns as well. So why can't OU win the national title? Because of one big, huge, glaring deficiency that has come to the attention of Nick Tait in Tulsa:

Bob Stoops has run one of the most successful programs in the nation, and in so doing produced both a Heisman winner (Jason White) and runner-up (Josh Heupel) at quarterback. Yet Stoops seems to be consistently scrambling to locate quarterback talent. When he kicked Rhett Bomar off the team last year, the Sooners were forced to use a wide receiver (Paul Thompson) the entire season. When Sam Keller decided to leave Arizona State, I thought he would be perfect for Norman. When he (and no one else) did not, it left a three-man competition for 2007 -- without any standouts. My only explanation for the tepid interest in quarterbacking at Oklahoma is its track record with developing pro talent. Any thoughts?

It's true: OU's quarterback stable right now borders on disastrous. None of the three contenders -- redshirt freshman Sam Bradford, juco transfer Joey Hazle and true freshman Keith Nichol -- were highly recruited elsewhere (though Nichol originally committed to Michigan State). The hope in Norman is that Bradford, the likely starter, will surprise people like Colt McCoy at Texas last year, but if he doesn't there aren't a whole lot of other viable options. Part of the problem is just bad luck -- Tommy Grady transferred to Utah because he was stuck behind Bomar and ASU's Rudy Carpenter, from what I've been told, would have been on the first plane to Oklahoma had Sun Devils coach Dirk Koetter not pulled his 11th-hour switcheroo with Keller. But I also think you hit the nail on the head in your question: High-profile QB recruits want to go someplace where they know they can develop into NFL quarterbacks. Stoops has produced two phenomenal college QBs (Heupel and White) and one very solid one (Nate Hybl), but they barely sniffed the next level. I'm not sure it's fair to blame that on OU's program, but if you're Keller, and you're going into your last season to prove yourself before the draft, and your choices are playing for the Sooners or playing for NFL passing guru Bill Callahan, you're probably going to pick the latter.

And if you're a pollster trying to fill out your preseason ballot, and you know OU is likely going to be starting a no-name freshman QB, that probably weighs on your decision far more than a 55-19 blowout three years ago.

More importantly, Mandel's explanation for Oklahoma's quarterback problems makes no sense at all. If NFL success is a pre-requisite for recruiting success with quarterbacks, then why was Steve Spurrier able to sign Rex Grossman and Brock Berlin when his NFL quarterbacks had all been wash-outs? How was Ohio State able to sign Troy Smith and Justin Zwick without having produced an NFL starter in eons? How has Penn State ever been able to sign a quarterback? How was Alabama able to sign Tyler Watts and Brodie Croyle when they haven't produced an NFL starter since Richard Todd?

The correct explanation for Oklahoma's quarterback situation is very simple: they committed to Rhett Bomar and all their other options (guys like Tommy Grady who were highly recruited) bailed, so when Bomar was kicked out of school, Oklahoma was left with nothing. They are in the process of rebuilding their depth at the position and Keith Nichol is the first step in that direction. And what the hell is with giving Bill Callahan credit for developing college quarterbacks? Ask Harrison Beck, his premier quarterback recruit, about Callahan's genius.

2. Lloyd Carr and Charlie Weis

In two years, Charlie Weis has beaten one team that finished the season in the Top 25 (No. 24 Penn State last year), yet he seems to walk on water Notre Dame's fan base and evades all criticism. Lloyd Carr has multiple Big Ten titles over the last decade and a national championship, yet a large chunk of the Michigan fan base can't stop dissing him. By mid-January 2008, what are the chances that ND Nation will be starting to wonder about Charlie and the forever Blue have all decided that Lloyd is worthy of being rated amongst their best ever?--Ken Braun, Lansing, Mich.

There's no question this is going to be an important year in both coaches' tenures, but I'm not sure it's fair to compare the two so directly. Weis is still very much in the building phase of his program, which was pretty far down when he got there. While all those big-game blowouts the past two years exposed the 2005 and '06 Irish as national-title pretenders, I can't say I blame ND fans for being excited about the future following 19 wins and consecutive BCS berths. Apparently they've seen enough to believe Weis is the guy to lead them to the promised land. The question is, will they still feel that way if, as most of us expect, Jimmy Clausen & Co. endure a rough transition season in '07. We're talking about an offense that is going to be very young and will almost certainly struggle early in the season. Unfortunately, that also coincides with the toughest part of ND's schedule. It's not inconceivable to envision the Irish losing their first three games (Georgia Tech, at Penn State and at Michigan) as well as several others (at Purdue, at UCLA, BC, USC).

The Irish close, however, with Navy, Air Force, Duke and Stanford. If they can get to a bowl, and especially if they finally win a bowl, I would imagine the enthusiasm surrounding Weis will remain in tact come January. If they finish 5-7 or 6-7, we may see the beginnings of a Tyrone Willingham-style backlash.

As for Carr, the expectations are higher because he raised them by winning that title in '97. While Michigan has fielded many good teams since then, the closest they've come to returning to that level was last year, and even that season culminated in a familiar ending -- losing to Ohio State, losing the Rose Bowl. The prevailing feeling is that this may be Carr's last season one way or the other, but if he wants to go out with the kind of legacy and appreciation one might reasonably associate with a guy who's won 76 percent of his games and five Big Ten titles, he'd best be advised to finally beat the Buckeyes (he'd still be just 2-5 against Jim Tressel but would finish with a winning record -- 7-6 -- against OSU overall). Beating a national-title caliber program like a USC in the Rose Bowl or another BCS game would be icing on the cake.

If this is true, then Notre Dame fans are idiots because they would be deciding to be happy with Charlie Weis for beating Navy, Air Force, Duke and Stanford and then doing better than 1-7 in the opening eight games. Unless Irish fans are totally irrational (resisting the urge to take gratuitous swipe...there, it passed), then they recognize that this year and possibly next year as well are going to be the years when they will suffer the most for Ty Willingham's incredibly weak recruiting classes. That said, they probably also recognize that making a bowl is not a huge hurdle for any major program. If Irish fans liked what they saw from Notre Dame in Weis's first two years, then they should not let 2007 and 2008 affect their judgment too much, unless the Irish completely bottom out. What Mandel misses is the fact that thinking Notre Dame fans might be quietly wondering about Weis after a season in which the Irish had experienced talent all over the field and failed to produce much against almost all of the quality defenses they faced. Mandel also misses the fact that fans are almost always happy with a coach during the honeymoon period, especially when that coach is following two dolts.

As for Lloyd Carr, I can't tell you how enlightening it is to read that his legacy might be affected by whether he finishes out his career with four straight losses to Ohio State. And isn't Carr's legacy as a guy who has won 76% of his games affected by the fact that he coaches at a program that has won 75% of its games over the course of its 126-year history?

4 comments:

“If this is true, then Notre Dame fans are idiots because they would be deciding to be happy with Charlie Weis for beating Navy, Air Force, Duke and Stanford and then doing better than 1-7 in the opening eight games.”

Time for revision. This sentence makes no sense – quite literally. Would Notre Dame fans be idiots if they were pleased that Charlie Weis beat Navy, Air Force, Duke, and Stanford and also went 8-0 in the remaining schedule?

“What Mandel misses is the fact that thinking Notre Dame fans might be quietly wondering about Weis after a season in which the Irish had experienced talent all over the field and failed to produce much against almost all of the quality defenses they faced.”

A drum that you beat constantly, but consider this: what does experienced talent mean when the NFL holds its collective nose come draft day? I’m going to break down ND’s offensive unit using the Top Ten as a standard (teams like Michigan, Auburn, USC etc.) and tell me if you disagree with any of this.

QB – above average. Though you may actually disagree with this one. After all, wasn’t it your contention during the autumn of 2006, that if Quinn wasn’t a golden boy, he would have been just another pretty face?

RB – really substandard. The main guy had arguably the greatest career statistically for a running back in ND’s history. He wasn’t drafted. The next guy played linebacker, out of defensive desperation. The third guy was a 5-star freshman coming off of knee surgery who went down as soon as you touched his ankle. No breakaway speed or ability to break a tackle among the bunch.

WR – substandard. The best one would have been a pretty good pro if he had chosen that path. The next guy had one of the greatest seasons in ND receiving history – and didn’t get drafted. Does that kind of thing happen at Michigan? Drop me a line the next time a Wolverine WR has 1,100 yards and 13 touchdowns his senior season and has to go the FA route. The third guy has decent hands, but he’s also a midget and not very fast. The fourth guy dropped both balls that were thrown to him. Very little speed here.

TE – above average. First day draft pick next year. But he was also injured during the last two games of the year, during which time ND’s offense curiously stalled against very good defenses. Must be a Weis problem.

Offensive Line – really substandard. Two veteran guys with decent opportunities for long pro careers (Harris and Sullivan). Another guy who will be great in a few years, but whose play was commensurate with his age (frosh Young), and a couple of other guys who were eaten alive. Oh and zero depth, but that’s a continual refrain for Notre Dame.

I could beat home the lack of speed and depth on that offensive unit, but I don’t think I need to. Do you honestly think this unit’s talent matches up to top flight teams in the country? And yeah, I agree that Weis showed that he isn’t about to turn your tap water into a fine Beaujolais any time soon, but I have to think that Weis was hamstrung not only by the lack of overwhelming talent on the field, but the lack of any talented players on his bench (read: depth) that he could use to throw a new wrinkle or two at the defense. I mean if Darius Walker is getting 400 touches a season, no wonder defenses were getting pretty good at reading the screen pass.

Other than that, I have very little argument, especially when you point out the doltish nature of Notre Dame’s previous two coaches. But what else would I expect from a shining example of Michigan’s exceedingly rational fan base? A fact for which I am very grateful, especially when ND travels to quiet Michigan Stadium, for reason frequently comes at the expense of passion…

1. The first sentence means that Notre Dame fans would be foolish to decide that a 6-6 season is acceptable, given that there are four games at the end that are close to free wins for a major program, so they only need to win two of their remaining eight to get to 6-6. I don't think that ND fans are that irrational. I think that they understand the limitations that Ty's recruiting have put on them this year, but that just means that they'll accept 7-5 or 8-4; not that they would accept a total disaster.

2. ND's starting offense last year was composed almost exclusively of highly-ranked high school players. Darius Walker might not have been an NFL draftee, but he was a four-star recruit and a pretty good running back, all things considered. There were three starters taken in the Draft (and they would have had four if Samardzija wouldn't have opted for baseball).

The bigger problem that you have is that the talent on offense was enough to produce big-time offensive points and yards in 2005, but they took a significant step back in 2006. That implies that: (1) opposing defensive coordinators figured out Weis's offense and tendencies after seeing more film of his offense; and (2) Weis isn't an offensive genius, but rather exploited the newness of his scheme in 2005 and then got a comeuppance in 2006. Weis's value is bound up in his image as an offensive guru. If you take that away from him, then his recruiting advantage goes with it (ND will always bring its own recruiting advantage to the table) and what are you left with? A guy who is clearly better than his two predecessors, but not a great coach.

BTW, I am genuinely going to feel sorry for ND and their fans when the CW this year (assuming that ND struggles) is that this proves that Weis isn't much better than Ty, given that the struggles this year would be the result of Ty's recruiting.

And you're absolutely right about Michigan fans being less than noisy. This is what happens when you combine a bunch of people who prefer to be ironic and make jokes instead of screaming their heads off and a flat stadium with no decks.

A few things:I see now what you mean with your 1-7 statement. And I agree.

Darius Walker was not a 4-star recruit. Look him up on rivals.com or scout at some point. He was a pretty good back, but that’s not the point.

This paragraph is very problematic:

“The bigger problem that you have is that the talent on offense was enough to produce big-time offensive points and yards in 2005, but they took a significant step back in 2006. That implies that: (1) opposing defensive coordinators figured out Weis's offense and tendencies after seeing more film of his offense; and (2) Weis isn't an offensive genius, but rather exploited the newness of his scheme in 2005 and then got a comeuppance in 2006. Weis's value is bound up in his image as an offensive guru. If you take that away from him, then his recruiting advantage goes with it (ND will always bring its own recruiting advantage to the table) and what are you left with? A guy who is clearly better than his two predecessors, but not a great coach.”

There are two several errors lodged within this line of thinking. First that the 2006 team was a mirror image of the 2005. It was not. We all focused on the fact that ND was returning 8 starters and assumed “oh, they’ll be just as good in 2006, if not better.” That might have some validity if we’re talking about Florida, Michigan, and Ohio State – teams so deep and talented that having to replace 3 starters is a walk in the park. But because ND has been placed in such a precarious position talent-wise by predecessors Tweedledee and Tweedledum, taking away Maurice Stovall, Matt Shelton, and Travis Thomas (among others) really mattered. Far more than it should for a supposed powerhouse football program.

But that’s what happens when your junior class has all of 6 players.

I realize this point is debatable, and we can quibble about it, but it’s not the most important point.

Here’s the main issue. Notre Dame was just as dominant offensively against the weak defensive teams in 2006 as they were in 2005 (MSU, Purdue etc.). Against the strong ones, the Irish were not. Compare Tennessee 2005 with Georgia Tech 2006. The reason? Pretty simple. In games in which ND did not have an obvious talent advantage, Weis out-schemed his opponents in 2005; in 2006 he did not. To that extent you are correct.

But that’s only a problem if Weis continues to have teams similar in talent and depth as the last two years. He will not. The notion that Weis may be in trouble because his reputation as an offensive guru is in jeopardy does not take into account the recruiting strides that have already been taken. If we end up laughing at the notion of Weis’ “genius,” it’s because he was exposed with teams in 2007-9 much deeper and more highly rated by recruiting services than the teams of 2005-6. In other words he has teams that don’t require him to wildly out-scheme his heavyweight opponents because of talent disadvantages at every position except for quarterback and tight end. I guess we’ll see what happens.

Anyway, 2007 may be painful to watch in terms of freshman mistakes, and ND will be bad…. but there will be at least one article written on ESPN.com this year about how much “faster” ND looks than in previous years. And it will be probably written after an incredible 38-35 win in Ann Arbor.

First off, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Notre Dame beat Michigan this year. This is a series that has been very favorable to the favorite and Michigan is going to be a considerable favorite going in. Also, if Demetrius Jones is the quarterback, Michigan does not have a good history against guys who can run.

I think the synthesis that we're reaching in discussing Weis is that recruiting is by far the most important function of a college football coach. Weis was able to out-scheme teams with greater talent in '05, but not in '06. When he has equivalent or better talent, then he won't need to out-scheme opponents.

That said, I also think there is a strong argument to be made that, upon reflection, Notre Dame played a very weak slate of defenses in '05. Michigan's defense was average, as was Tennessee's. USC had their worst defense of the Carroll era (or at least since his first year). The Ohio State team that ND played in the Fiesta Bowl was the best defense they saw all year and OSU handled ND fairly well (21 points and about 350 yards, IIRC). Maybe Weis's image as an offensive genius was a mirage from the outset (although I also realize that I argued that ND's offensive success in '05 shows that they had a talented unit and not I'm claiming that that success was a function of their schedule, so I'm really moving in circles).